Pastor William Weedon has done some very nice research collecting quotations from church fathers supporting classic Lutheran positions. The Lutheran Reformers did not see themselves as innovators. We teach nothing new, but only what has been said before. Here is Pastor Weedon’s blog. Here is the same material presented with Pastor Weedon’s kind permission in a pdf format.
Thanks to Rev. Paul McCain for bringing this to our attention.
Sphere: Related Content
6600 N. Clinton Street 
Loading ...
{ 5 } Comments
The same St. John Chrysostom who is quoted as if he were a Sola Scripturist also says:
[II Thess 2:15 [show]2 Thessalonians 2:15
] “So then, brethren,
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (ESV)
stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye were taught, whether
by word, or by Epistle of ours.”
Hence it is manifest, that they did
not deliver all things by Epistle, but
many things also unwritten, and in
like manner both the one and the
other are worthy of credit. Therefore
let us think the tradition of the Church
also worthy of credit. It is a tradition,
seek no farther.
As for St. Gregory of Nyssa, I very much doubt Lutherans would want to interpret Scripture as he did, sometimes allegorizing the literal meaning away entirely!
St. Basil, also quoted, says the Lord is faithful in all His words; who wishes to disagree with that? He says to delete or add anything to Holy Write is unacceptable, and who would take exception to that? The sacred text of Holy Scripture (like that of the Creed) is to remain unaltered. We Orthodox emphatically agree. He quotes, “My sheep hear my voice,” and to this we uniformly assent.
St. Basil does *not* say that Voice is only reliably to be found in Holy Scripture. He does not say the *source* of doctrine or practice is the Holy Scripture alone. He does not say something is to be judged by Scripture alone. He does not say Scripture is self interpreting. In short, he does not advocate any form of sola Scriptura. If we read his works more comprehensively, this
becomes clear.
Nor can we legitimately assume that such words as “justify” and “justification” mean some for the Fathers, as they do to the Lutherans, or that “faith” for the Fathers did not include faith’s own works.
And so on.
In short, despite superficial appearances, that these Fathers were Lutherans is not actually supported by these highly selected quotes.
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..News Clip on Cedar Waxwings
What I’d encourage folks to do is to READ the fathers and see whether Anastasia or I am correct about what the fathers teach on these important matters. I’d say that they are anything BUT selective quotes, and just passages that I’ve collected from years of reading them. But no one should rely on either my say or Anastasia’s. READ them yourselves! Consider this list merely a “starting point.”
I’ll second that encouragement. But read not assuming the fathers mean the same thing Lutherans do by the same words.
See if any fathers say, for instance, that Scripture is the source (much less sole source) of doctrine and practice, or that anything is to be judged by it alone. Or that Scripture is always and everywhere self-interpreting. See if that’s in there.
See if that is what they themelves did. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, who urged his catechumens to check everything he said by Scripture, also taught them (Lecture III) all about chrismation (confirmation) with holy oil, which Lutherans, I think, don’t do and don’t find in Scripture. (St. Cyril quotes and alludes to Scripture copiously throughout.)
Read *about* these Fathers, too, who venerated relics and invoked saints in heaven and had (and/or themselves were) bishops and patriarchs.
It just won’t wash. The Fathers can’t fairly be called Lutherans.
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..Barbara Memories
Anastasia,
Would you have the humility to consider that the words they use MIGHT not mean the same thing as modern Orthodox (especially in America) use them? Or is your de facto position that they must mean what the Orthodox of today teach that they mean, and anything they say to the contrary must be fit into that framework? That’s how it comes across, my friend, and it’s not terribly convincing.
An example. You would see us as reading penal substitution into these words of St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Hebrews 9 [show]Hebrews 9
:
Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (ESV)
“So then also here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed not to leave us this inheritance, but was angry against us, and was displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.
And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] and brought [them to us], conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament.”
I think we would definitely see you (if you deny penal atonement here) just ignoring what the great Father actually was saying there.
First, William, the issue here is whether the Fathers mean what the say Lutherans they mean. Whether they mean what the Orthodox saythey mean is a separate issue. It’s one I’m willing to take on, although on my own blog, not to abuse the hospitality of this one.
Secondly, the issue is not humility v. pride, but truth v. falsehood. On that basis I’m willing to take on your challenge. Although I am not prepared to say no Father ever taught Pen-Sub, I am willing to say St. John Chrysostom did not, in this particular passage, and I believe I can make a good case for that assertion, too. Give me a day or so, as I have little time for the Internet just now; my semi-invalid husband, with his broken foot upon which he may not put any weight, is keeping us both hopping!
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
Post a Comment